[PKMAN]

Couldn’t help to jump back in…

Rt66, even though we’re on different sides and I think you are too radical in your view, I admire you for taking the time and the detail to defend the Big 2, while the original poster pretty much just sit on the sideline to watch a good fight and only jumping in occasionally. Since you’ve been doing such a good job defending the Big 2, I must challenge you again.

GM, Toyota, VW and Ford all produce 5 million+ vehicles worldwide annually. How is it that Toyota and VW can be very profitable while GM is bankrupt and Ford is barely surviving? GM and Ford combined still have 1/3 of the US market share. According to Wikipedia, GM is #1 in the US, #2 in China, #3 in EU and #4 in South America. Can you think of another company that has such globally dominant market share and still bankrupt? The union argument doesn’t hold water because VW also has very strong union, maybe even stronger and more demanding than UAW. Government subsidies and foreign exchange fluctuation may play a minor factor but do not explain the extremity of these 4 companies’ situation, especially the dire situation of GM.

Every retiring CEO of GM in the last 30 years claimed that the company was in better shape than when they took over and that GM would be in better shape against the competitions moving forward (saw than in a news documentary recently), and yet GM is now bankrupt. Either they all lied blatantly to the consumers and investors or they were too ignorant to face the facts. It’s sad to see that while people like you are fighting hard to drum up support for the Big 2, their management has failed consumers, investors and you time and time again.

[PKMAN]

Couldn’t help to jump back in…

Rt66, even though we’re on different sides and I think you are too radical in your view, I admire you for taking the time and the detail to defend the Big 2, while the original poster pretty much just sit on the sideline to watch a good fight and only jumping in occasionally. Since you’ve been doing such a good job defending the Big 2, I must challenge you again.

GM, Toyota, VW and Ford all produce 5 million+ vehicles worldwide annually. How is it that Toyota and VW can be very profitable while GM is bankrupt and Ford is barely surviving? GM and Ford combined still have 1/3 of the US market share. According to Wikipedia, GM is #1 in the US, #2 in China, #3 in EU and #4 in South America. Can you think of another company that has such globally dominant market share and still bankrupt? The union argument doesn’t hold water because VW also has very strong union, maybe even stronger and more demanding than UAW. Government subsidies and foreign exchange fluctuation may play a minor factor but do not explain the extremity of these 4 companies’ situation, especially the dire situation of GM.

Every retiring CEO of GM in the last 30 years claimed that the company was in better shape than when they took over and that GM would be in better shape against the competitions moving forward (saw than in a news documentary recently), and yet GM is now bankrupt. Either they all lied blatantly to the consumers and investors or they were too ignorant to face the facts. It’s sad to see that while people like you are fighting hard to drum up support for the Big 2, their management has failed consumers, investors and you time and time again.

[PKMAN]

Couldn’t help to jump back in…

Rt66, even though we’re on different sides and I think you are too radical in your view, I admire you for taking the time and the detail to defend the Big 2, while the original poster pretty much just sit on the sideline to watch a good fight and only jumping in occasionally. Since you’ve been doing such a good job defending the Big 2, I must challenge you again.

GM, Toyota, VW and Ford all produce 5 million+ vehicles worldwide annually. How is it that Toyota and VW can be very profitable while GM is bankrupt and Ford is barely surviving? GM and Ford combined still have 1/3 of the US market share. According to Wikipedia, GM is #1 in the US, #2 in China, #3 in EU and #4 in South America. Can you think of another company that has such globally dominant market share and still bankrupt? The union argument doesn’t hold water because VW also has very strong union, maybe even stronger and more demanding than UAW. Government subsidies and foreign exchange fluctuation may play a minor factor but do not explain the extremity of these 4 companies’ situation, especially the dire situation of GM.

Every retiring CEO of GM in the last 30 years claimed that the company was in better shape than when they took over and that GM would be in better shape against the competitions moving forward (saw than in a news documentary recently), and yet GM is now bankrupt. Either they all lied blatantly to the consumers and investors or they were too ignorant to face the facts. It’s sad to see that while people like you are fighting hard to drum up support for the Big 2, their management has failed consumers, investors and you time and time again.

[PKMAN]

Couldn’t help to jump back in…

Rt66, even though we’re on different sides and I think you are too radical in your view, I admire you for taking the time and the detail to defend the Big 2, while the original poster pretty much just sit on the sideline to watch a good fight and only jumping in occasionally. Since you’ve been doing such a good job defending the Big 2, I must challenge you again.

GM, Toyota, VW and Ford all produce 5 million+ vehicles worldwide annually. How is it that Toyota and VW can be very profitable while GM is bankrupt and Ford is barely surviving? GM and Ford combined still have 1/3 of the US market share. According to Wikipedia, GM is #1 in the US, #2 in China, #3 in EU and #4 in South America. Can you think of another company that has such globally dominant market share and still bankrupt? The union argument doesn’t hold water because VW also has very strong union, maybe even stronger and more demanding than UAW. Government subsidies and foreign exchange fluctuation may play a minor factor but do not explain the extremity of these 4 companies’ situation, especially the dire situation of GM.

Every retiring CEO of GM in the last 30 years claimed that the company was in better shape than when they took over and that GM would be in better shape against the competitions moving forward (saw than in a news documentary recently), and yet GM is now bankrupt. Either they all lied blatantly to the consumers and investors or they were too ignorant to face the facts. It’s sad to see that while people like you are fighting hard to drum up support for the Big 2, their management has failed consumers, investors and you time and time again.

[PKMAN]

Couldn’t help to jump back in…

Rt66, even though we’re on different sides and I think you are too radical in your view, I admire you for taking the time and the detail to defend the Big 2, while the original poster pretty much just sit on the sideline to watch a good fight and only jumping in occasionally. Since you’ve been doing such a good job defending the Big 2, I must challenge you again.

GM, Toyota, VW and Ford all produce 5 million+ vehicles worldwide annually. How is it that Toyota and VW can be very profitable while GM is bankrupt and Ford is barely surviving? GM and Ford combined still have 1/3 of the US market share. According to Wikipedia, GM is #1 in the US, #2 in China, #3 in EU and #4 in South America. Can you think of another company that has such globally dominant market share and still bankrupt? The union argument doesn’t hold water because VW also has very strong union, maybe even stronger and more demanding than UAW. Government subsidies and foreign exchange fluctuation may play a minor factor but do not explain the extremity of these 4 companies’ situation, especially the dire situation of GM.

Every retiring CEO of GM in the last 30 years claimed that the company was in better shape than when they took over and that GM would be in better shape against the competitions moving forward (saw than in a news documentary recently), and yet GM is now bankrupt. Either they all lied blatantly to the consumers and investors or they were too ignorant to face the facts. It’s sad to see that while people like you are fighting hard to drum up support for the Big 2, their management has failed consumers, investors and you time and time again.

[PKMAN]

This is a very intellectually-stimulating forum that has sparked credited and valid arguments from both sides. I think I probably won’t contribute anymore (I have a full-time job, honestly) but would like to say just a few more things before going away:

Jeff Bridges can pitch for whoever he wants, domestic or foreign brand. He’s an actor so it’s his livelihood to do this kind of stuff without discrimination. If we’re at war with Korea, I’d understand but this is peacetime so let the man do his job.

GM and Ford do make good cars nowadays but they’ve alienated consumers for decades in the small/mid-size sedan segment and have not had a true winner since the original Taurus in the mid 80s. The Big Three were too fixated on trucks, SUVs and niche vehicles (Viper, Corvette, etc.) that for years their small/mid sedans were sub-par and unreliable comparing to the foreign brands. They didn’t lose consumers’ confidence overnight, they had decades to perfect it. I’m glad to see that they are now finally making good small/mid sedans but winning us back will take time, as we’re still a bit skeptical.

After employee pricing, factory rebate, dealer cash-back, 0% financing and all other goodies offered by the desperate Big Three, buying an American mid-size probably would’ve been $5K-$7K less than my Accord, but I’d be buying from a car-maker with spotty history in the mid-size segment vs. a car-maker whose mid-size has been consistently praised by the automotive press for 20+ years and has been consistently the top 5 selling (non-truck, non-rental sales) vehicle in the US for 20+ years. That $5K-$7K cost differentiation upfront would also be made up in 3-5 years when I’d be ready to trade-in, as the Accord has one of the highest resale value of all mid-size.

Now I did state that I was seriously considering the Pontiac G8 so some of you may think I’m contradicting myself. But G8 is a full-size that is new to the market so to me it’s a clean slate and thus I was willing to consider it.

I hope there will be more good posts on this topic and look forward to keep on reading it.

[PKMAN]

This is a very intellectually-stimulating forum that has sparked credited and valid arguments from both sides. I think I probably won’t contribute anymore (I have a full-time job, honestly) but would like to say just a few more things before going away:

Jeff Bridges can pitch for whoever he wants, domestic or foreign brand. He’s an actor so it’s his livelihood to do this kind of stuff without discrimination. If we’re at war with Korea, I’d understand but this is peacetime so let the man do his job.

GM and Ford do make good cars nowadays but they’ve alienated consumers for decades in the small/mid-size sedan segment and have not had a true winner since the original Taurus in the mid 80s. The Big Three were too fixated on trucks, SUVs and niche vehicles (Viper, Corvette, etc.) that for years their small/mid sedans were sub-par and unreliable comparing to the foreign brands. They didn’t lose consumers’ confidence overnight, they had decades to perfect it. I’m glad to see that they are now finally making good small/mid sedans but winning us back will take time, as we’re still a bit skeptical.

After employee pricing, factory rebate, dealer cash-back, 0% financing and all other goodies offered by the desperate Big Three, buying an American mid-size probably would’ve been $5K-$7K less than my Accord, but I’d be buying from a car-maker with spotty history in the mid-size segment vs. a car-maker whose mid-size has been consistently praised by the automotive press for 20+ years and has been consistently the top 5 selling (non-truck, non-rental sales) vehicle in the US for 20+ years. That $5K-$7K cost differentiation upfront would also be made up in 3-5 years when I’d be ready to trade-in, as the Accord has one of the highest resale value of all mid-size.

Now I did state that I was seriously considering the Pontiac G8 so some of you may think I’m contradicting myself. But G8 is a full-size that is new to the market so to me it’s a clean slate and thus I was willing to consider it.

I hope there will be more good posts on this topic and look forward to keep on reading it.

[PKMAN]

This is a very intellectually-stimulating forum that has sparked credited and valid arguments from both sides. I think I probably won’t contribute anymore (I have a full-time job, honestly) but would like to say just a few more things before going away:

Jeff Bridges can pitch for whoever he wants, domestic or foreign brand. He’s an actor so it’s his livelihood to do this kind of stuff without discrimination. If we’re at war with Korea, I’d understand but this is peacetime so let the man do his job.

GM and Ford do make good cars nowadays but they’ve alienated consumers for decades in the small/mid-size sedan segment and have not had a true winner since the original Taurus in the mid 80s. The Big Three were too fixated on trucks, SUVs and niche vehicles (Viper, Corvette, etc.) that for years their small/mid sedans were sub-par and unreliable comparing to the foreign brands. They didn’t lose consumers’ confidence overnight, they had decades to perfect it. I’m glad to see that they are now finally making good small/mid sedans but winning us back will take time, as we’re still a bit skeptical.

After employee pricing, factory rebate, dealer cash-back, 0% financing and all other goodies offered by the desperate Big Three, buying an American mid-size probably would’ve been $5K-$7K less than my Accord, but I’d be buying from a car-maker with spotty history in the mid-size segment vs. a car-maker whose mid-size has been consistently praised by the automotive press for 20+ years and has been consistently the top 5 selling (non-truck, non-rental sales) vehicle in the US for 20+ years. That $5K-$7K cost differentiation upfront would also be made up in 3-5 years when I’d be ready to trade-in, as the Accord has one of the highest resale value of all mid-size.

Now I did state that I was seriously considering the Pontiac G8 so some of you may think I’m contradicting myself. But G8 is a full-size that is new to the market so to me it’s a clean slate and thus I was willing to consider it.

I hope there will be more good posts on this topic and look forward to keep on reading it.

[PKMAN]

This is a very intellectually-stimulating forum that has sparked credited and valid arguments from both sides. I think I probably won’t contribute anymore (I have a full-time job, honestly) but would like to say just a few more things before going away:

Jeff Bridges can pitch for whoever he wants, domestic or foreign brand. He’s an actor so it’s his livelihood to do this kind of stuff without discrimination. If we’re at war with Korea, I’d understand but this is peacetime so let the man do his job.

GM and Ford do make good cars nowadays but they’ve alienated consumers for decades in the small/mid-size sedan segment and have not had a true winner since the original Taurus in the mid 80s. The Big Three were too fixated on trucks, SUVs and niche vehicles (Viper, Corvette, etc.) that for years their small/mid sedans were sub-par and unreliable comparing to the foreign brands. They didn’t lose consumers’ confidence overnight, they had decades to perfect it. I’m glad to see that they are now finally making good small/mid sedans but winning us back will take time, as we’re still a bit skeptical.

After employee pricing, factory rebate, dealer cash-back, 0% financing and all other goodies offered by the desperate Big Three, buying an American mid-size probably would’ve been $5K-$7K less than my Accord, but I’d be buying from a car-maker with spotty history in the mid-size segment vs. a car-maker whose mid-size has been consistently praised by the automotive press for 20+ years and has been consistently the top 5 selling (non-truck, non-rental sales) vehicle in the US for 20+ years. That $5K-$7K cost differentiation upfront would also be made up in 3-5 years when I’d be ready to trade-in, as the Accord has one of the highest resale value of all mid-size.

Now I did state that I was seriously considering the Pontiac G8 so some of you may think I’m contradicting myself. But G8 is a full-size that is new to the market so to me it’s a clean slate and thus I was willing to consider it.

I hope there will be more good posts on this topic and look forward to keep on reading it.

[PKMAN]

This is a very intellectually-stimulating forum that has sparked credited and valid arguments from both sides. I think I probably won’t contribute anymore (I have a full-time job, honestly) but would like to say just a few more things before going away:

Jeff Bridges can pitch for whoever he wants, domestic or foreign brand. He’s an actor so it’s his livelihood to do this kind of stuff without discrimination. If we’re at war with Korea, I’d understand but this is peacetime so let the man do his job.

GM and Ford do make good cars nowadays but they’ve alienated consumers for decades in the small/mid-size sedan segment and have not had a true winner since the original Taurus in the mid 80s. The Big Three were too fixated on trucks, SUVs and niche vehicles (Viper, Corvette, etc.) that for years their small/mid sedans were sub-par and unreliable comparing to the foreign brands. They didn’t lose consumers’ confidence overnight, they had decades to perfect it. I’m glad to see that they are now finally making good small/mid sedans but winning us back will take time, as we’re still a bit skeptical.

After employee pricing, factory rebate, dealer cash-back, 0% financing and all other goodies offered by the desperate Big Three, buying an American mid-size probably would’ve been $5K-$7K less than my Accord, but I’d be buying from a car-maker with spotty history in the mid-size segment vs. a car-maker whose mid-size has been consistently praised by the automotive press for 20+ years and has been consistently the top 5 selling (non-truck, non-rental sales) vehicle in the US for 20+ years. That $5K-$7K cost differentiation upfront would also be made up in 3-5 years when I’d be ready to trade-in, as the Accord has one of the highest resale value of all mid-size.

Now I did state that I was seriously considering the Pontiac G8 so some of you may think I’m contradicting myself. But G8 is a full-size that is new to the market so to me it’s a clean slate and thus I was willing to consider it.

I hope there will be more good posts on this topic and look forward to keep on reading it.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]3)If you chose foreign you are saying “I’m ok with unfair trade practices and companies that steal American jobs and wealth”
[/quote]

I hate to tell you this Rt.66, but that’s you. The gas in your car is of Middle East origin. The computer system you use to have this intellectually-fun coversation with us online is probably made in China by Taiwanese companies. The cloth you wear is probably made in South America by European companies. The TV you watch is most likely made in Mexico by a Japanese company. You also should never vacation outside the US as that would only let foreginers take your hard-earned USD.

If it’s not OK for Americans to buy foreign, then to be perfectly fair American companies should also not profit from overseas markets. Ford should sell Volvo back to a Swedish company. GM should make a complete withdrawal from China. Boeing should sell planes only to American airlines. Hawaii should be a vacation destination only to Americans and Hollywood should not release movies outside the US. Now how do these actions help the US economy?

Your support for made in USA products is admirable and your intention is genuine. But your statements and proposed methods, if ever implemented, will throw us back to the 1700s, and even in the 1700s we relied on the export of cotton, timber, fur and other products for our eventual nation to thrive.

Can the US survive on its own without trading with anybody? Absolutely! We are one of the only few countries in the world that have all the necessary resources and the knowhow to be a stand-alone superpower. But do we want to be another North Korea?

Trade imbalance is a serious issue that our government should take actions to improve. But the ideal economy is a balanced trade, not no trade at all. We should encourage American shoppers to buy more domestically-produced or domestically-assembled products. But to say that if you choose foreign then you suck and don’t deserve to be an American is too harsh. You will only get negative effects.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]3)If you chose foreign you are saying “I’m ok with unfair trade practices and companies that steal American jobs and wealth”
[/quote]

I hate to tell you this Rt.66, but that’s you. The gas in your car is of Middle East origin. The computer system you use to have this intellectually-fun coversation with us online is probably made in China by Taiwanese companies. The cloth you wear is probably made in South America by European companies. The TV you watch is most likely made in Mexico by a Japanese company. You also should never vacation outside the US as that would only let foreginers take your hard-earned USD.

If it’s not OK for Americans to buy foreign, then to be perfectly fair American companies should also not profit from overseas markets. Ford should sell Volvo back to a Swedish company. GM should make a complete withdrawal from China. Boeing should sell planes only to American airlines. Hawaii should be a vacation destination only to Americans and Hollywood should not release movies outside the US. Now how do these actions help the US economy?

Your support for made in USA products is admirable and your intention is genuine. But your statements and proposed methods, if ever implemented, will throw us back to the 1700s, and even in the 1700s we relied on the export of cotton, timber, fur and other products for our eventual nation to thrive.

Can the US survive on its own without trading with anybody? Absolutely! We are one of the only few countries in the world that have all the necessary resources and the knowhow to be a stand-alone superpower. But do we want to be another North Korea?

Trade imbalance is a serious issue that our government should take actions to improve. But the ideal economy is a balanced trade, not no trade at all. We should encourage American shoppers to buy more domestically-produced or domestically-assembled products. But to say that if you choose foreign then you suck and don’t deserve to be an American is too harsh. You will only get negative effects.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]3)If you chose foreign you are saying “I’m ok with unfair trade practices and companies that steal American jobs and wealth”
[/quote]

I hate to tell you this Rt.66, but that’s you. The gas in your car is of Middle East origin. The computer system you use to have this intellectually-fun coversation with us online is probably made in China by Taiwanese companies. The cloth you wear is probably made in South America by European companies. The TV you watch is most likely made in Mexico by a Japanese company. You also should never vacation outside the US as that would only let foreginers take your hard-earned USD.

If it’s not OK for Americans to buy foreign, then to be perfectly fair American companies should also not profit from overseas markets. Ford should sell Volvo back to a Swedish company. GM should make a complete withdrawal from China. Boeing should sell planes only to American airlines. Hawaii should be a vacation destination only to Americans and Hollywood should not release movies outside the US. Now how do these actions help the US economy?

Your support for made in USA products is admirable and your intention is genuine. But your statements and proposed methods, if ever implemented, will throw us back to the 1700s, and even in the 1700s we relied on the export of cotton, timber, fur and other products for our eventual nation to thrive.

Can the US survive on its own without trading with anybody? Absolutely! We are one of the only few countries in the world that have all the necessary resources and the knowhow to be a stand-alone superpower. But do we want to be another North Korea?

Trade imbalance is a serious issue that our government should take actions to improve. But the ideal economy is a balanced trade, not no trade at all. We should encourage American shoppers to buy more domestically-produced or domestically-assembled products. But to say that if you choose foreign then you suck and don’t deserve to be an American is too harsh. You will only get negative effects.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]3)If you chose foreign you are saying “I’m ok with unfair trade practices and companies that steal American jobs and wealth”
[/quote]

I hate to tell you this Rt.66, but that’s you. The gas in your car is of Middle East origin. The computer system you use to have this intellectually-fun coversation with us online is probably made in China by Taiwanese companies. The cloth you wear is probably made in South America by European companies. The TV you watch is most likely made in Mexico by a Japanese company. You also should never vacation outside the US as that would only let foreginers take your hard-earned USD.

If it’s not OK for Americans to buy foreign, then to be perfectly fair American companies should also not profit from overseas markets. Ford should sell Volvo back to a Swedish company. GM should make a complete withdrawal from China. Boeing should sell planes only to American airlines. Hawaii should be a vacation destination only to Americans and Hollywood should not release movies outside the US. Now how do these actions help the US economy?

Your support for made in USA products is admirable and your intention is genuine. But your statements and proposed methods, if ever implemented, will throw us back to the 1700s, and even in the 1700s we relied on the export of cotton, timber, fur and other products for our eventual nation to thrive.

Can the US survive on its own without trading with anybody? Absolutely! We are one of the only few countries in the world that have all the necessary resources and the knowhow to be a stand-alone superpower. But do we want to be another North Korea?

Trade imbalance is a serious issue that our government should take actions to improve. But the ideal economy is a balanced trade, not no trade at all. We should encourage American shoppers to buy more domestically-produced or domestically-assembled products. But to say that if you choose foreign then you suck and don’t deserve to be an American is too harsh. You will only get negative effects.

[PKMAN]

[quote=Rt.66]3)If you chose foreign you are saying “I’m ok with unfair trade practices and companies that steal American jobs and wealth”
[/quote]

I hate to tell you this Rt.66, but that’s you. The gas in your car is of Middle East origin. The computer system you use to have this intellectually-fun coversation with us online is probably made in China by Taiwanese companies. The cloth you wear is probably made in South America by European companies. The TV you watch is most likely made in Mexico by a Japanese company. You also should never vacation outside the US as that would only let foreginers take your hard-earned USD.

If it’s not OK for Americans to buy foreign, then to be perfectly fair American companies should also not profit from overseas markets. Ford should sell Volvo back to a Swedish company. GM should make a complete withdrawal from China. Boeing should sell planes only to American airlines. Hawaii should be a vacation destination only to Americans and Hollywood should not release movies outside the US. Now how do these actions help the US economy?

Your support for made in USA products is admirable and your intention is genuine. But your statements and proposed methods, if ever implemented, will throw us back to the 1700s, and even in the 1700s we relied on the export of cotton, timber, fur and other products for our eventual nation to thrive.

Can the US survive on its own without trading with anybody? Absolutely! We are one of the only few countries in the world that have all the necessary resources and the knowhow to be a stand-alone superpower. But do we want to be another North Korea?

Trade imbalance is a serious issue that our government should take actions to improve. But the ideal economy is a balanced trade, not no trade at all. We should encourage American shoppers to buy more domestically-produced or domestically-assembled products. But to say that if you choose foreign then you suck and don’t deserve to be an American is too harsh. You will only get negative effects.

[Author]

Posts